[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12484647
]
Owen O'Malley commented on HADOOP-1161:
---------------------------------------
> I do not like the idea of applying the same patch more than one place (i.e trunk and
a branch etc.) -
> merging handles this nicely, provided we maintain a bit of discipline.
Merging is fine, but it means you have to commit in one place and then start the next. If
there is a conflict, it would be nice to know before you commit it.
In my experience, it works much better to merge changes from the stable branch up into the
head. The problem with merging down is that you can have accidental leakage of new features
into the stable branch.
> need improved release process
> -----------------------------
>
> Key: HADOOP-1161
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HADOOP-1161
> Project: Hadoop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: build
> Reporter: Doug Cutting
> Fix For: 0.13.0
>
>
> Hadoop's release process needs improvement. We should better ensure that releases are
stable, not releasing versions that have not been proven stable on large clusters, and we
should better observe Apache's release procedures. Once agreed on, this process should be
documented in http://wiki.apache.org/lucene-hadoop/HowToRelease.
> Here's a proposal:
> . candidate release builds should be placed in lucene.apache.org/hadoop/dev/dist
> . candidate artifacts should be accompanied by a md5 and pgp signatures
> . a 72-hour vote for the release artifact should be called on hadoop-dev.
> . 3 binding +1 votes and a majority are required
> . if the vote passes, the release can then posted to www.apache.org/dist/lucene/hadoop
for mirroring
> This would bring us into accord with Apache's requirements, and better permit large-cluster
validation.
> We should also build consensus for a release before we commence this process. Perhaps
we should aim for releases every two months instead of every month. We should perhaps develop
more elaborate branching and merging conventions around releases. Currently we mostly lock-out
changes intended for release X+1 from trunk until release X is complete, which can be awkward.
How can we better manage that?
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.